X-10: Are these settings recommendations correct?

Started Nov 23, 2012 | Discussions
Mark H
Mark H Veteran Member • Posts: 3,594
Re: Playing with puzzle . . .

Billx08 wrote:

Mark H wrote:

DS21 wrote:

Peter Rowe wrote:

... that did it! Thank you very much. I can't believe I have read and tried a million things and never came across that one. I can now set DR400% and get ISO100 in bright light - perfect!

Try setting the ISO to AUTO1600, that might be the problem, the AUTO3200 is effectively turning off DR400 hardware operation in M mode when RAW+JPEG is selected, turning it automatically to software only DR400 like in L mode.

You are welcome, I am somewhat surprised that it was actually the right solution. Strange ways of Fuji designers and software writers.

Well done 'DS21' - another peculiarity (or bug?) of the X10-EXR's behaviour discovered.

However - I'm still not following why Peter couldn't get DR400% when he manually set ISO100 as he described earlier (in 'M' size).

One reason would be if the X10 was set so that EXTERNAL FLASH was set to ON instead of OFF. Another (which some people already know) is that if the M size DR was set to 400%, enabling RAW also forces DR to 100% but using RAW+JPEG leaves it at 400%.

The 'EXTERNAL FLASH - ON' is a valid point, worth checking for - although any use of flash, including the built-in flash, or an external Fuji-flash unit (not requiring 'EXT' FLASH - ON') - all flash use will prevent the 'EXR-DR' function (which would prevent any DR>ISO, or ISO<DR).

Re 'RAW' v 'RAW+JPEG' - I believe Peter has only ever referred to use of 'RAW+JPEG'.

Not to detract from the two points above - neither of them explain the 'puzzle' of why the camera will select ISO100+DR400% in ISO-AUTO(1600) but won't go below ISO400+DR400% in ISO-AUTO(3200) - in Peter's camera at least, as the X10 I recently checked didn't suffer the same behaviour.

solsang
solsang Senior Member • Posts: 1,206
raw removed from raw button for a reason

Peter Rowe wrote:

Based on my DSLR experience I think I got blind-sided into RAW  I think from now on I will stick with JPEG.

I experienced the same, after using the raw-only sigma i found it very strange to use jpg, yet found i can work with the x10 to create useful incamera jpgs and realized the x10 raw aren't worth the hazzle, very much hinted at by fuji taking away the raw shortcut from the raw button!

The new filters are very useful, especially the toy filter that is perfect for making a boring house into a framed and colourful fairytale, i have truly begun speculating about the constant hunt for photographic exactness, when the reason for making photos are joy and inspiration

Using the viewfinder with the monitor off and review off makes it another type of camera, and the fact that i can cut it at will afterwards partly negates the slightly constraining 85% coverage (the limit set by fuji to keep the prism small enough, i wouldn't mind it being a bit bigger:)

-- hide signature --

Useful tips and facts about Fujifilm X10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RYxbNsSGs2FtpkjpsLlA-yrkjXO_DKiBaVpMdLPA5P4/edit#
_____________________________________________
Collected user advice for all Sigma DP1 and DP2 models:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB)

 solsang's gear list:solsang's gear list
Fujifilm X-S1 Fujifilm XQ2 Portrait Professional Studio Apple iPad Mini +8 more
DS21 Senior Member • Posts: 2,084
Re: X-10: Son of a gun!

rattymouse wrote:

DS21 wrote:

Peter Rowe wrote:

... that did it! Thank you very much. I can't believe I have read and tried a million things and never came across that one. I can now set DR400% and get ISO100 in bright light - perfect!

Try setting the ISO to AUTO1600, that might be the problem, the AUTO3200 is effectively turning off DR400 hardware operation in M mode when RAW+JPEG is selected, turning it automatically to software only DR400 like in L mode.

You are welcome, I am somewhat surprised that it was actually the right solution. Strange ways of Fuji designers and software writers.

FUJIFILM should be flogged for their idiotic EXR system. The solution you found to this problem is amazing in it's complexity and near randomness. Very impressive that you found it.

-- hide signature --

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

I guess I successfully broke into the head of a Fuji EXR software engineer. A lot of confusion inside...

 DS21's gear list:DS21's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix S100fs Pentax MX-1 Pentax K-x Pentax K-01 Pentax K-5 IIs +6 more
Mark H
Mark H Veteran Member • Posts: 3,594
OVF coverage...

solsang wrote:

Peter Rowe wrote:

Based on my DSLR experience I think I got blind-sided into RAW I think from now on I will stick with JPEG.

I experienced the same, after using the raw-only sigma i found it very strange to use jpg, yet found i can work with the x10 to create useful incamera jpgs and realized the x10 raw aren't worth the hazzle, very much hinted at by fuji taking away the raw shortcut from the raw button!

The new filters are very useful, especially the toy filter that is perfect for making a boring house into a framed and colourful fairytale, i have truly begun speculating about the constant hunt for photographic exactness, when the reason for making photos are joy and inspiration

Using the viewfinder with the monitor off and review off makes it another type of camera, and the fact that i can cut it at will afterwards partly negates the slightly constraining 85% coverage (the limit set by fuji to keep the prism small enough, i wouldn't mind it being a bit bigger:)

The 85% coverage is nothing to do with 'keeping the prism small'.

The coverage is limited to 85% simply to allow a 'safety-margin' to mitigate against the inevitable alignment/build tolerances limitation, and parallax, errors between the viewfinder and the imaging system.

By limiting the OVF coverage to only 85% (actually just 72% by linear dimension) - there is much better chance of getting most of what you see in the OVF included in the captured image, despite the two systems being not only offset, but almost inevitably, imperfectly aligned too.

(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 13,144
Re: X-10: Son of a gun!

DS21 wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

DS21 wrote:

Peter Rowe wrote:

... that did it! Thank you very much. I can't believe I have read and tried a million things and never came across that one. I can now set DR400% and get ISO100 in bright light - perfect!

Try setting the ISO to AUTO1600, that might be the problem, the AUTO3200 is effectively turning off DR400 hardware operation in M mode when RAW+JPEG is selected, turning it automatically to software only DR400 like in L mode.

You are welcome, I am somewhat surprised that it was actually the right solution. Strange ways of Fuji designers and software writers.

FUJIFILM should be flogged for their idiotic EXR system. The solution you found to this problem is amazing in it's complexity and near randomness. Very impressive that you found it.

-- hide signature --

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

I guess I successfully broke into the head of a Fuji EXR software engineer. A lot of confusion inside...

Now you are scarrred for life.

-- hide signature --

DISCLAIMER: The text written herein is meant to provide the opinions and/or suggestions of the author. No statement herein is meant to be considered law of the land, representative of any party or group, and or a quote from any party or group. Neither is any statement in the contained text meant to be taken as scripture, doctrine, or all encompassing of an entire populous or any groups or individuals therein.

solsang
solsang Senior Member • Posts: 1,206
Re: OVF coverage...

Mark H wrote:

The 85% coverage is nothing to do with 'keeping the prism small'.

Fujis official x10 page states "This figure was determined to obtain a perfect balance between the camera's body size and ease of viewing."

http://fujifilm-x.com/x10/en/story/story2/page_02.html

The coverage is limited to 85% simply to allow a 'safety-margin' to mitigate against the inevitable alignment/build tolerances limitation, and parallax, errors between the viewfinder and the imaging system

Luminous has a long article about viewfinders explaining that "Roughly speaking, there is a trade-off between magnification and coverage. The higher the coverage, the lower the magnification."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml

Useful tips and facts about Fujifilm X10: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RYxbNsSGs2FtpkjpsLlA-yrkjXO_DKiBaVpMdLPA5P4/edit#
_____________________________________________
Collected user advice for all Sigma DP1 and DP2 models:
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ARddveJWxIl_ZGZuN3Y0ZG1fMTA1ZmRyOHNkaHE&hl=en_GB)

 solsang's gear list:solsang's gear list
Fujifilm X-S1 Fujifilm XQ2 Portrait Professional Studio Apple iPad Mini +8 more
Mark H
Mark H Veteran Member • Posts: 3,594
Re: OVF coverage - illustration...
1

solsang wrote:

Mark H wrote:

The 85% coverage is nothing to do with 'keeping the prism small'.

Fujis official x10 page states "This figure was determined to obtain a perfect balance between the camera's body size and ease of viewing."

http://fujifilm-x.com/x10/en/story/story2/page_02.html

The coverage is limited to 85% simply to allow a 'safety-margin' to mitigate against the inevitable alignment/build tolerances limitation, and parallax, errors between the viewfinder and the imaging system

Luminous has a long article about viewfinders explaining that "Roughly speaking, there is a trade-off between magnification and coverage. The higher the coverage, the lower the magnification."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml

Neither one of the two web pages above support your claim/belief...

1. Fuji's article refers to the 'angle of view' not the coverage% (these are quite different things).

Quote: "X10 has a viewing angle of 20 degrees. .../... This figure was determined to obtain a perfect balance between the camera's body size and ease of viewing."

N.B. They do not refer to the 85% coverage here at all.

2. Re: L-L's page on viewfinders - there is certainly a "trade-off between magnification and coverage", as it describes - but this has nothing to do with "keeping the [X10's] prism small" (as you originally stated).

The OVF 'coverage%' could be increased, with a proportional reciprocal reduction in its magnification -  and yet the 'viewing angle', which is what Fuji relates to "the camera's body size", could be just the same - so quite clearly, the body/prism size is not the reason for the coverage being limited to just 85%.

The L-L article is highly pertinent though, is the section it titles 'Dirty Little Secrets'  - quote: "This highly approximate system is self-correcting. It hides slop in many different places. .../... Since the camera's viewfinder doesn't begin to cover the whole area seen by the negative [sensor], it doesn't matter if maybe the viewfinder image isn't centered properly."

So, I'll repeat - The 85% coverage limitation is purely there to provide a framing 'safety margin'.

Without this -15% 'safety margin' you would very often find a significant % of what you saw in the OVF had simply been cropped/clipped out of you captured image - it really is that basic, and that simple.

Even with the 15% safety margin you will still find some clipping of the captured image (relative to the OVF) particularly at close distances and/or the telephoto FL end.

Example: Below is an image framed with the edges of the disc-ellipse touching the OVF's edges on all four sides (its 85% coverage marked in red outline) - Note: Lens 112mm FL equiv', distance approx' 1.2m (4ft).

Notice that even though the OVF only showed 85%, the full image captured is not just off-centre, but the 15% 'safety margin' still wasn't enough to prevent the disc from being 'clipped-off' on the left side (the grey area).

For the same amount of parallax error, if the OVF coverage had been 100%, then the resulting image would be that which is marked by the blue outline - and the clipping due to the parallax error would have been far worse.

Hopefully, this illustrates fairly clearly why the OVF coverage is restricted to 85% - it's simply a means to reduce/mitigate against the inevitable impact of parallax error...





Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,452
Re: OVF coverage - illustration...

Mark H wrote:

So, I'll repeat - The 85% coverage limitation is purely there to provide a framing 'safety margin'.

Without this -15% 'safety margin' you would very often find a significant % of what you saw in the OVF had simply been cropped/clipped out of you captured image - it really is that basic, and that simple.

Do you work for Fuji Mark? Serious question. Calling it a "safety margin" seems a bit rich, as if it was designed for the user who might accidentally clip their images. More like if they had bothered to go 100% then the lens would definitely have obscured half the viewfinder.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

timo Veteran Member • Posts: 5,087
Re: OVF coverage - illustration...

Danielepaolo wrote:

Mark H wrote:

So, I'll repeat - The 85% coverage limitation is purely there to provide a framing 'safety margin'.

Without this -15% 'safety margin' you would very often find a significant % of what you saw in the OVF had simply been cropped/clipped out of you captured image - it really is that basic, and that simple.

Do you work for Fuji Mark? Serious question. Calling it a "safety margin" seems a bit rich, as if it was designed for the user who might accidentally clip their images. More like if they had bothered to go 100% then the lens would definitely have obscured half the viewfinder.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

I've no doubt it is a safety margin, as was the case with every compact film camera from various manufacturers, including Canon and Pentax, that I had in the 1980s onwards. There's nothing new or 'suspicious' about that. I don't think the VFs on my old Canon P&S digitals were any more accurate either, for all the same reasons. I think it is absolutely, precisely intended to cater for the user who might accidentally clip their images otherwise. Seems like simple common sense to me.

tim
www.pbase.com/timotheus

 timo's gear list:timo's gear list
Pentax K-5 Pentax K-30 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8
Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,452
Re: OVF coverage - illustration...

timo wrote:

I've no doubt it is a safety margin, as was the case with every compact film camera from various manufacturers, including Canon and Pentax, that I had in the 1980s onwards. There's nothing new or 'suspicious' about that. I don't think the VFs on my old Canon P&S digitals were any more accurate either, for all the same reasons. I think it is absolutely, precisely intended to cater for the user who might accidentally clip their images otherwise. Seems like simple common sense to me.

Damn Tim! Another conspiracy theory blown out of the water. Thanks for your comment.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Mark H
Mark H Veteran Member • Posts: 3,594
Design limitations, etc...

Danielepaolo wrote:

Mark H wrote:

So, I'll repeat - The 85% coverage limitation is purely there to provide a framing 'safety margin'.

Without this -15% 'safety margin' you would very often find a significant % of what you saw in the OVF had simply been cropped/clipped out of you captured image - it really is that basic, and that simple.

Do you work for Fuji Mark? Serious question. Calling it a "safety margin" seems a bit rich, as if it was designed for the user who might accidentally clip their images. More like if they had bothered to go 100% then the lens would definitely have obscured half the viewfinder.

It's not a matter of "..if they had bothered..." - and I dare say that the viewfinder could have been moved slightly/the layout changed, if the lens obstruction was the only issue - but it isn't.

100%' could never really be 100% - it could almost never be accurate enough, for many many reasons...

1. First there is the most obvious, the obvious lateral offset between the two optical axes.

2. Then, it would be something of a miracle if the two separate optical axes were ever perfectly angularly parallel to each other, and throughout their respective zoom range too.

3. The two optical systems are only 'nominally equivalent' - they are quite obviously very different in their optical designs.

4. And you can even vary the amount you see through the OVF, simply by moving the position of your eye around.

Now, if you think you could design, build, and couple together, these two viewing/capturing optical-zoom systems to produce an accurate/effective 100% coverage, then I suggest you get in touch with Fuji' and explain to them how (and Canon, Nikon etc, too, for that matter).

The 'time honoured', and obvious, way to mitigate these design/manufacturing limitations, is simply to make the OVF coverage narrower than the captured final image - so that what is seen through the OVF's view falls, more often/mostly within the somewhat wider field captured by the film/sensor.

Even SLRs do this to varying degrees, most having less than 100% coverage, for some of the same reasons, except they have no obvious parallax problem.

In the case of SLRs, it's primarily a matter of manufacturing tolerance limitations - SLRs don't have the same 'parallax' problems to deal with, because the VF and the image capture systems share the same objective optics - yet even with that advantage, many SLRs still only have say 95% coverage even then.

Danielepaolo
MOD Danielepaolo Veteran Member • Posts: 4,452
Re: Design limitations, etc...

Thanks.

-- hide signature --

Apologies if my lack of photographic knowledge is catching.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads